3 ms·

Do humans have the right not to be killed by humans? All humans, or just humans of the same nationality? If so, where do you draw the line between, say, killin

Do humans have the right not to be killed by humans? All humans, or just humans of the same nationality? If so, where do you draw the line between, say, killing humans and killing fish? I'm not trying to suggest that the two are equivalent, but constructing a logical argument for the line being somewhere rather than elsewhere is non trivial.

emodendroket 8y ago
Somewhere in here you inevitably take some intuitive stance, call it "self-evident," and use it as your premise. This is the problem with formal ethics, I guess; if you can't agree on the premises of the discussion you're just stuck. I mean, what if we go the other way? Am I a murder for swatting a mosquito and killing it? OK, what makes that different from the fish? Is the fish more like a human or a mosquito? Is unintentional killing of animals the same as intentional? Surely we don't believe that stepping on a worm is equivalent to manslaughter. Well, you get the idea. To me, the anthropocentric view seems completely natural. In a hypothetical trolley problem with a human and an animal I can't see a circumstance where I'd ever choose to save the animal and allow the human to die. From this thought experiment I appeal to intuition to say that human life is qualitatively different, and of more value, than animal life.
noobermin 8y ago
Can you or do you draw a line between fish and plants? How about plants and fungi? Fungi and bacteria? Btw, if you're upset at the reductio ad absurdum asking to extend rights we've decided humans have to fish also has a similar flavor to it. I for example have a logical argument that includes people but doesn't include fish: humans have consciousness, experience, and others (like children) have potential for such and this consciousness usually is and can be at a markedly higher level than most animals.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I'm sympathetic to your view. I'd also add that human beings are moral agents while asking, for instance, if it's moral for a lion to kill a gazelle is incoherent. But the usual objection here is that surely we don't believe it's OK to harm infants or the mentally handicapped and none of the answers you can give there are great.
  - noobermin 8y ago
    As I said, for children, there is the potential for life for consciousness, and for neurodivergent people, the "consciousness" at a higher level is paramount. Of course, how you define a higher level is a question, I admit. Once you draw the line, there should be a level of equality in that group, like a "more cognizant being" doesn't get more value than a "less cognizant being", for example, a child doesn't have more value than an adult, although sure, adults can make decisions children cannot. That said, and this is something I don't think everyone will agree with, I think the rights of cognizant beings are more important than for beings which aren't. For example, I'm pro-choice personally, and I find the rights of a cognizant mother more important that that of a clog of cells even if they have potential to become a cognizant being eventually. Of course, once a child is born, it becomes another issue because an infant is more aware in some sense, has viability, and greater potential for becoming a cognizant being. Another opinion I have is, for example, I have no problem with say guardians deciding to pull the plug on individuals in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. I personally, and call me all the names you want, value the rights of cognizant beings or beings with potential for cognition as more important that that of beings which aren't. Finally, regardless of logical consistency of any sense of morality, I actually think that ultimately it isn't that important as material and social context, and I personally believe that whatever we decide will always be subject to that ultimately.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      There are people who are not in a persistent vegetative state, though, who suffer severe mental handicaps and are nonverbal. It makes this question look a little less pat than I would like it to.
- yboris 8y ago
  You're factually wrong: fish have conscious experience, most importantly, they feel pain https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain-180967764/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain...
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    They may feel pain, but they don't have thoughts like "it is a difficult life for a fish." Their quality of "consciousness" is on a different plane than ours.

emodendroket 8y ago

Somewhere in here you inevitably take some intuitive stance, call it "self-evident," and use it as your premise. This is the problem with formal ethics, I guess; if you can't agree on the premises of the discussion you're just stuck. I mean, what if we go the other way? Am I a murder for swatting a mosquito and killing it? OK, what makes that different from the fish? Is the fish more like a human or a mosquito? Is unintentional killing of animals the same as intentional? Surely we don't believe that stepping on a worm is equivalent to manslaughter. Well, you get the idea. To me, the anthropocentric view seems completely natural. In a hypothetical trolley problem with a human and an animal I can't see a circumstance where I'd ever choose to save the animal and allow the human to die. From this thought experiment I appeal to intuition to say that human life is qualitatively different, and of more value, than animal life.

noobermin 8y ago

Can you or do you draw a line between fish and plants? How about plants and fungi? Fungi and bacteria? Btw, if you're upset at the reductio ad absurdum asking to extend rights we've decided humans have to fish also has a similar flavor to it. I for example have a logical argument that includes people but doesn't include fish: humans have consciousness, experience, and others (like children) have potential for such and this consciousness usually is and can be at a markedly higher level than most animals.

emodendroket 8y ago
I'm sympathetic to your view. I'd also add that human beings are moral agents while asking, for instance, if it's moral for a lion to kill a gazelle is incoherent. But the usual objection here is that surely we don't believe it's OK to harm infants or the mentally handicapped and none of the answers you can give there are great.
- noobermin 8y ago
  As I said, for children, there is the potential for life for consciousness, and for neurodivergent people, the "consciousness" at a higher level is paramount. Of course, how you define a higher level is a question, I admit. Once you draw the line, there should be a level of equality in that group, like a "more cognizant being" doesn't get more value than a "less cognizant being", for example, a child doesn't have more value than an adult, although sure, adults can make decisions children cannot. That said, and this is something I don't think everyone will agree with, I think the rights of cognizant beings are more important than for beings which aren't. For example, I'm pro-choice personally, and I find the rights of a cognizant mother more important that that of a clog of cells even if they have potential to become a cognizant being eventually. Of course, once a child is born, it becomes another issue because an infant is more aware in some sense, has viability, and greater potential for becoming a cognizant being. Another opinion I have is, for example, I have no problem with say guardians deciding to pull the plug on individuals in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. I personally, and call me all the names you want, value the rights of cognizant beings or beings with potential for cognition as more important that that of beings which aren't. Finally, regardless of logical consistency of any sense of morality, I actually think that ultimately it isn't that important as material and social context, and I personally believe that whatever we decide will always be subject to that ultimately.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    There are people who are not in a persistent vegetative state, though, who suffer severe mental handicaps and are nonverbal. It makes this question look a little less pat than I would like it to.
yboris 8y ago
You're factually wrong: fish have conscious experience, most importantly, they feel pain https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain-180967764/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain...
- emodendroket 8y ago
  They may feel pain, but they don't have thoughts like "it is a difficult life for a fish." Their quality of "consciousness" is on a different plane than ours.